dot_plot

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the output encoding ('◎ first active day, ● value event, · nothing') and explains how mark_events alters output, which is real behavioral context. But it omits side effects, whether a file is written, and any permission/format requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Compact and front-loaded, with the core format stated first and the legend detail following. No filler sentences, though the legend is dense shorthand that assumes prior context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage the description leaves too much unresolved: the expected CSV structure, the weeks window, and lang behavior are all missing, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies mark_events with a concrete example ({"create_playlist": "P"}) and partially explains value_event, but csv_path, weeks, and lang are entirely undocumented, leaving most parameters ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description establishes the resource and form ('Text dot plot: one row per user, one cell per day'), so the agent knows it renders a textual visualization. However there is no explicit verb for the action (generate/render) and no differentiation from the analytics-heavy siblings, so the purpose is implied rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as retention_curve or onboarding_funnel, nor are prerequisites (csv source, required columns) mentioned. The reader must infer usage entirely from the format description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.